Dang it! I'm so sorry @uberbrady. I didn't see a notification about this reply, though I had checked back a couple times looking for it. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner.

I certainly don't assume you're dumb. Far from it. If my communication style implies that, I really need to improve there as that is not my intention. There's a huge difference between dumb and ignorant (currently uniformed would be a kinder way to say it).

re: rewound

Every time a node starts up, it has to replay the entire blockchain from the genesis block and veryify transactions fit the protocol. A fork in the code which evaluates those transactions which are being received from other seed nodes distributed throughout the world can then decide if a transaction is valid or not. If a transaction is received which the code determines is invalid, it will not be included in the history of the blockchain for that node. If all other nodes agree to that, then they will all have the same hashes and will all agree on what the "true" history is. This is how all blockchains work, so it's not unique to POW or DPOS. I'm not implying you're dumb by saying you don't yet understand how this works. It's complicated stuff.

Let's start from the beginning. After reading the original bitcoin white paper, you understand how the blockchain history works. The choice of DPOS over POW is just a matter of different ways to create a new block of valid transactions. The fundamental concepts of what is allowed and what is not is still the same, such as transactions have to have valid signatures before they can be included in a block and signed by the block producer. Maybe you're wanting to see the specific line of code which validates transactions to ensure the signatures match? Maybe I'm making too many assumptions that the STEEM blockchain is in fact a blockchain and follows these same validation principles?

Seems to me your question is more like: "Is STEEM a blockchain?" My answer is yes. To truly verify that, you could go through the code of the steemd client and ensure there's nothing malicious in there which would create circumstances where witnesses and nodes could somehow skip the validation process.

Again, sorry for not replying sooner. I really liked this dialogue and spent a lot of time on it. I was eagerly waiting for your reply and totally missed it. :(